I'm going to say no, athletes with prostheitcs should not be allowed to compete in this event. I'm not sure that "better" defined as faster can be reliably determined because the sample size of high level amputee atheletes is small. But the technology will improve. At what point do you get to say "that limb is OK, but this one goes too far"

maybe this isn't fair. but it's no less fair than the fact that I wasn't born with a super low HR and an abnormally high lactic threshold - so I can't waste Lance Armstrong on a climb. I wasn't born big enough to be a linebacker or tall enough to guard Yao Ming. I don't think that's unfair, it's just the facts.

Maybe there are other events where the rules should be different. How about archery, or even equestrian? What about curling? I don't know anything about these sports so I'm not qualified to say. I know that's another "where to draw the line" dilema. But in running, as long as there is any doubt about how much is leveling the playing field and how much is overtaking the field - the judgement is just.

definitely a difficult question...who has the advantage when you're measuring the advantages of being competitive in finer and finer increments? does equipment eclipse the purity of the balance of sport?

From the IAAF's article: "The positive work, or returned energy, from the prosthetic blade is close to three times higher than with the human ankle joint in maximum sprinting." Ergo, no, they should not be eligible. As ChunkyB wrote, that is what the paralympics are for and why they have their own division in IM events. And by the way, have we gotten to a point in society where people with 'disadvantages' are entitled to compete at whatever level they choose? I am referring to the submitter's tag: "Challenged athlete rights." So challenged athletes have a right to compete in the Olympics? On what basis? Because they are challenged? Evidence the blind guy at Ironman Kona who was riding a tandem (ie, half the effort).

I think we are all eligble if we get in the race as we are.......prosthetics don't convey a level playing field.......but if you are a one armed air pistol shooter....well then shoot away my friend but carbon ankles with ridiculous bounce? no thanks

and thanks for confirming that I'm not the only one who questioned the legitamacy of riding a tandem at Kona (and was I the only one who noticed that the camera acted like the guy who could see wasn't even there? They never showes his face let alone mention him)

Don't get me wrong, the blind guy would crush me with little effort but society has gone a little too far trying to make us all feel like we have no differences

What David's article doesn't mention is some key facts about the current athletes competing with prosthetics... First, elite athlete Oscar Pistorius from South Africa still isn't even fast enough to qualify for the Olympics. This story first hit my radar a few weeks ago, and I have been thinking about it for a while now. What puzzles me is that the IOC chose to ban these athletes before any of them were even fast enough to qualify.

Basically, my point is this: Even if they let him, Oscar Pistorius couldn't be in the Olympics based on qualifying time alone. This isn't an issue of letting "challenged" athletes into the Olympics based on special accommodations. Pistorius wants to enter the open division and compete on the same level... The only "accommodations" are his prosthetics. What should he do? Compete running on his stumps? Then we say, "too bad... that's the way you are. If you can't be fast enough on your stumps, then go to the special olympics. Go there and clean house because you've reached a level where you are totally dominating the competition." To me that just seems stupid. I think the ruling bodies are making a big mistake here. Even if the prosthetics offer some "advantage" to real legs, we still have to account for the fact that the athlete is MISSING MUSCLES. Sure, they don't have to expel energy to use those muscles they are missing, but they do have to compensate for that, and the remaining muscles have to work harder to generate energy through the prosthetic.

Surely, with some effort, the ruling body and manufactures/athletes could come to some sort of compromise with respect to construction/materials etc.

You're very correct Leroy.... definitely an important distinction that I botched...

These are all really good points. It's a tough dilemma. I can say, you tri with these athletes you will not feel sorry for yourself no matter how much you are suffering!

stewarba, although I understand your point (and kudos for actually pulling the charter) the discrimination part is somewhat irrelevant here. The prosthectics are needed to make them competative...... unlike being a protestant, being from cambodia, or being a liberal which are reasons you can be discriminated for.......i believe this thread is not necessarily should handicapped athletes be in the olympics, but actually should they be able to accomidate for that handicap with prosthetics, that could (potentially) give them an advantage over all competitors.

I have seen documentaries about para-lympic athletes with leg attachments that made them 4" taller than normal.........either way, I tend to believe it is ok to have different categories for different people (helloooooooo clydesdales?!?!) My impression of the spirit of the olympics is we compete as God has us set up and it's our training and our heart that gets us over the top. If your handicap has you unable to compete in the standard olympics without prostethis then the para-lympics is for you, if you can pull off competing without it, then have at it and good luck.........that being said most of those guys and girls there would still hand me my butt on a platter in any event ;)

Scott,

No worries, I don’t entirely disagree with you either, but that is kind of my point. This is a circular argument that can neither be won by either side. In my mind, discrimination is not reserved to just values and beliefs but rather by the treatment of a group of people like you mention. However, by saying that you cannot be given an opportunity to compete because you are missing a foot, you are discriminating against all people who are missing a foot. Having read parts of the Olympic charter, the overarching theme of the Olympics is a celebration of the human spirit. The Olympic Games are only part of the celebration and by allowing the games and its participants to be larger than the celebration itself; we are changing its intent. If in fact we can agree that the games are just a part of the celebration, I think we would all agree that it would be a shame to somehow think that a paraplegic’s human spirit is somewhat lessoned because of their handicap. It is because of this that I personally feel that a paraplegic should be given the opportunity to EARN a spot on his/her Olympic team.

Having said that, like you and others have mentioned, I agree that the prosthesis cannot give the paraplegic a competitive advantage and if it is deemed to do that, then they should NOT be given special consideration based on their handicap under the guise of discrimination.

I don't think what you're discribing Chunky is discrimination. Its more like meeting a requirement. You have the right to get smarter in a specific field if you choose and pursue a career in that field so that you are on a level playing field with others to satisfy a requirement based on a skillset. It becomes discrimination when they say you can't get a career in field X because you are a triathlete (for example).

In the case of the Olympics, your not being discriminated against because you are slower as long as you are given the same opertunity to try which I think you are afforded. You won't make the team because you won't meet the requirement for entry. Not because of who you are or what you are about. You have to understand that the Olympics is a culmination of many trials and qualifications - the "A" race for many athletes on a 4 year plan.

I maintain that I don't disagree with the thought that a person should NOT be afforded a special prevelidge based on a dissability. If a disabled person with a prosthetic can prove that they are not getting an unfair advantage by using that prosthetic, then they should be afforded the oportunity to TRY to make the Olympic team on the same set of requirements as everyone else.

I agree with some of what you said, stewarba, but I still say that there is always going to be discrimination in most everything. I think the word "discriminate" has a negative connotation because people usually associate it with treating someone unfairly. Don't get hung up on that one specific definition of the word "discriminate". We discriminate every day in everything we do. You discriminate in what you choose to eat, drink, wear, and do. You discriminate in who you choose to associate with. Discriminate basically just means to make an educated choice between multiple options. From Wikipedia: "The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to 'distinguish between'".

The act of allowing some people to compete in the Olympics and not others is discrimination. Whether it is based on physical ability, or race, or gender, or just not being fast enough to qualify, it's all discrimination. That's what it means to discriminate. And the Olympics are based on the idea of discriminating. I don't want to watch the Olympics and see just anyone racing. I want to see the best of the best. That's discrimination, and that's what makes the Olympics great.

Oh, and I completely disagree that we're on a level playing field if we have all our limbs intact or whatever. You said that you're not being discriminated against if you're given equal opportunity to qualify, but I could train for years and I would never be a world-class athlete in any kind of endurance sport. Much of it has to do with genetics and body type, and that's something I can't change. So, I am absolutely being discriminated against. I also think that some people are born with natural mental abilities, and there are certain people that could never be rocket scientists or Nobel prize winners, or marine biologists(like George Castanza). None of us are on a level playing field.

I just want to say once and for all that I think a huge problem today is that many people try and ignore any kind of differences that people have. We try to ignore that people are of a certain race instead of celebrating their cultural backgrounds and what makes them unique. We try to ignore that someone isn't as good in school instead of celebrating the abilities that they do have in other aspects of life. One of my biggest pet peeves is the fact that so many people are so deathly afraid of offending someone, that they basically ignore any kind of differences like this. We're all different. I think we should quit trying to fight it and just accept it.

I would also like to add that the title of the thread is totally leading. "Should challenged athletes be banned from Olympics?". Come on. It's as if challenged athletes have always made up a large part of Olympic athletes, and now evil people are trying to get them banned or something. When you say it like that, it makes you sound like a jerk if you say yes. It's like saying "do you think poor, cute, little, defenseless animals should be killed by the thousands" instead of "do you like bug zappers". So, I think that has contributed somewhat to the tone of the thread.

Please don't take this the wrong way because it may sound harsh, but you are not being discriminated against because of all the things you mentioned. You are just not good enough to qualify to be on the Olympic team - period. Guess what? Neither am I and I am OK with that, but I do maintain that you and I still have the right to try if we so choose. Discrimination would be me telling you that you can't try to be on the Olympic team because you live in Utah.

I don't take that the wrong way, because I understand the meaning of discrimination. It doesn't mean to be treated unfairly, it simply means to choose one thing over another. Telling me I couldn't compete because I'm from Utah is one form of discrimination, but it is also discriminating to tell me I can't compete because I'm not fast enough. One is more fair than the other, but they're both discrimination. Like I said in my earlier post, some discrimination is fair, and some is even good (like how I discriminate against fast food). Some discrimination is completely wrong, like when it's based race or gender or many other things.

Anyways, I think we all agree that anyone that can compete should be allowed to, but if someone's getting an unfair advantage, then that shouldn't be allowed.

I totally understand what everyone is saying, and I completely agree that someone shouldn't be kept from even trying to qualify because of some kind of disability. I didn't mean to make such a big deal about the word itself. I realize that was more annoying and lame than I intended.

I think if these prosthetics are giving some kind of unfair advantage, then they should definitely not be allowed. But if an amputee can run fast enough to qualify for the Olympics, then that's pretty amazing. Anyways, my main point was that the Olympics are not an all-inclusive event to begin with, but I agree that no one should be kept from even trying.

Here are the qualifying standards for the USATF.
I haven't seen anyone yet with an artificial leg who can run 28 minutes for a 10k, or 13 minutes for 5k. A marathon in 2:17? Haven't seen an amp be able to run that fast... yet. If they have an carbon fiber or Ti leg and want to be a thrower...have at it.
http://www.usatf.org
(I've had to modify the link. It wouldn't go directly to the qual page. You can find the qualifying standards though)

I've been watching this discussion from the sides for the last few days. I've taught Special Ed for 28 years and have seen and heard every possible negative, discriminatory, patronizing and down right ugly thing humans say about people who they feel are less than "complete" .
The good news is, you guys aren't anywhere close!
Anyone should be able to attempt the impossible. It defines us. While you guys see the Olympics as the apex, for many challenged people in this country it's about having your own place to live, a job, the right to some self respect. A chance to be. For challenged people in many other countries, it's about being able to stay alive.

+2 ;-)

My real leg or Alan Webb's real leg? Ahhh.....